Sunday, December 23, 2012

Anonymous: Very big difference between a homeowner and school staff--very, Very big difference.

CR Cobb:Castle
doctrine vs self defense. Well, not really versus, because they are
complimentary. It falls to a question of property rights, and the state
owns the facility, then you are at a dilemma. Do your property rights
originate with security in your person? Yes, if you are an
individualist. No, if you are a collectivist.

Yes,
different either way, but the "gun free zone" concept is dead. And in
the end, should the teachers have had the opportunity to effectively
exercise their right to self defense?

The gun-control fundamentalists act as if they hold the moral high ground, but they don't. They are anti-individual rights. They are pro-"collective rights." "Collective rights" paved the road to totalitarianism over and over, because they are treated as privileges that the collective can revoke.

Our government has soiled its hands throughout the world acting informed by the Arab/Chinese proverb:

My enemy's enemy is my friend.

It sounds so cold and calculating to describe that as Realpolitik. But, the reality is that it is a cold-blooded act to get in bed with thieves and killers. And the bad guys our government befriended will one day turn their backs on our government.

And here's the real rub:

I have not created this idea. It is based on the ideas of others, like all revelations. In sports, fans often refer to the success or failures of the teams they support with the pronoun "we." But "we" did not win the game; the players did. The insidiousness of "we" appears in elections. And it shows up wherever someone identifies with a group, even when one doesn't have direct influence on those actions.

But like Lew Rockwell says, "we" reaches its apogee with connections to the state. "We" identify with the state's actions, even though we bear no responsibility for those actions. But what I noticed in recent news conferences by Obama is that the agents of the state say "we" to identify its responsibility for the people. A statist uses "we" not only as a fan of itself, but as a way to disarm the people. "We" take responsibility for you. "We" will act when and where you are not able. "We" absolve your individual responsibility. "We" hold those who oppose the state's will accountable. "We" are the moral center. "We" are the state. You are "we."

The NRA purposely delayed commenting on the Sandy
Hook murders to allow time for those affected to begin the grieving
process. I also suspect that they hoped cooler heads would prevail, so
that their solution could receive a fairer "hearing."

One week still seems a little quick? Well they wanted to get their
proposal out there, before schools start back after the holidays. They
asked Congress to immediately fund placing an armed police officer in
every school - as a stop gap measure, until further solutions can be
explored. That is a great short-term solution.

Like LaPierre stated, the NRA has extensive experience in firearms
training of military personal, police and security, homeowners,
concealed-weapon carriers, hunters, etc. That expertise can be used to
train retired police, military, and retired and current EMTs and
firefighters to provide armed security in schools.
That is a great mid-term solution

What LaPierre did not immediate propose was eliminating "gun-free
zones." But he did criticize them for provided environments that allow
"maximum mayhem at minimum cost."
Allowing citizens to exercise their
right to self-defense in "(legally-owned)-gun free zones" would be a
great long-term solution.

The concept of "gun-free zones" is a fantasy. Really. Not only do
"gun-free zones" give a false sense of security, but they actually add
to a lack of security. Banning
semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines (AKA "assault rifles," modern
rifles) would add another layer to a false sense of security.

I logically assume that most parents are concerned with the immediate
safety of their children. Some want the NRA to focus on
the families. But don't you want someone to focus on your family? The safety of your kids? Real solutions instead of fantasies?

Thursday, December 20, 2012

I really can't come to a a conclusion about a moral quandary: Is it immoral for a group to interrupt a wedding, for their own advantage (of course), when another time could still serve their purposes? Why is it a moral quandary? Because it might not be possible for a group to act immorally.

When does "just taking orders" fail to provide a moral get-out-of-jail-free card? Can an organization really act in an immoral way and does that give the organization defacto - and possibly legally - personhood like corporations, or are immoral acts always the responsibilities of individuals?

In the USA's Uniform Code of Military Justice, an enlisted person or officer, has a legal out, if he or she disobeys an illegal order - and a duty. But disobeying an unlawful order is a judgement call, and it puts you at the mercy of a superior or a court martial.

And when police officers obey unconstitutional or illegal or plainly immoral orders, then they might just be obeying some unwritten rules, like: "You better go along to get along - and getting along is us getting your back." Or: It's just fun being a member of the LEO class." Also, there is comfort in groupthink. A police raid on a wedding to arrest someone with a warrant seems more moral for the individual cop, because the guilt is spread among the raiding officers.

So if groups can't act immorally, because they don't posses personhood, then it is the duty of the individual to act above statute, regulation, orders, or groupthink.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Schiff said that there would be non more QEs, nothing beyond QE3, because Bernanke called for QE3 to be indefinite. Quantitative easing is needed to stimulate the economy, because interest rates are at 0%. Paul Krugman said that QE3 wasn't enough, but how would more be possible? Well, Krugman might get his wish.

In a sale Monday, the treasury sold three-month bonds at -0.005 percent,
and six-month bonds at -0.006 percent. The treasury agency says it's
the first time they have registered negative yields.

Well, there you go. Krugman can have his wish: more and more money! When the Fed gives money to the banks at negative interest rate. Let's say the Federal Reserve should lower their interest rate to -1%, so the general public can really understand the madness.

Sunday, December 16, 2012

Gun control addresses tools, not criminal behavior. It criminalizes legitimate behavior, like taking responsibility for yourself, your loved ones, the weak, infirm, young, and old. It attempts to create zones of peace and safety, but actually creates places of vulnerability and destruction.

Gun control regulations (illegitimate laws) threaten the natural rights of people to be secure in their property, whether they use weapons to defend their property, or the property is the gun, or the property is themselves.

Gun control attempts to make self defense illegal, but illegitimate laws are never legal; they are regulations that violate everyone's rights. Gun control puts your safety in the hands of the police, but the courts have repeatedly informed us that the police are not liable for your safety.

Those who advocate for more gun control after the Sandy Hook murders are making another attempt to turn us all into sheep. Gun control advocates attempt to portray the government as a good shepherd. But if we're lucky, the government includes a small collection of sheepdogs. And those sheepdogs are only worth a damn when they are directly guarding the flock. There were sheepdogs at Sandy Hook, to be sure. They were the teachers. They were armed with their wit and courage. They should have been armed with weapons, too.

It is morally reprehensible to advocate gun control, because it only stops people who want to offer protection - not the selfish asshole who wants to violate our rights to the nth degree.

Friday, December 7, 2012

I love that Niall Ferguson mentioned Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolution in his blog post Turning Points: 2012 In Review. That's especially true, since it was only one of two science books that I "got" in college. The other was the text for my non-science-student science class, Physics of Light.

But I question his conclusion that seems to be based so much around elections, especially for the United States. The majority of "eligible voters" stayed home. But most significantly, there is finally such a clamor of libertarianism, freedomitis, and general dissatisfaction with government that the paradigm shift in political thought has happened despite the polls. We are in a new age, and once again politicians are set to follow. I wish I could contribute the quote referencing the civil rights era in the U.S., but it was said about civil rights that the great "leaders" like Kennedy and Johnson were just following what the people wanted. That's debatable depending on what "peoples" you speak with, but it is a "new" axiom that rings true.

The populous, not only in the U.S., wants their rights to be honored. We want our rights to be further codified. I want my rights to come first. Because they are natural, universal, and damn right.

My contention is that the paradigm shift is outside the state-sponsored election system. The paradigm shift is a ground swell that is fueled by freedom. The libertarian ideals do threaten the status quo of the state through direct challenges in the established electoral and political system, but freedom and freenecks will rock the world.

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Since I originally wrote about this, I have reevaluated my selection of primary home-defense weapon. I implied that shotguns were a great deterrent, so a great home-defense weapon. And through the wisdom of others, my thinking has abandoned the deterrent effect of a cocking shotgun. By default, my home defense gun has been a 9mm service-size pistol. I've considered other choices, but I have always reverted back to the 9mm. And I have choices, since I own a handgun, a shotgun, and a rifle.

It all comes down to your individual needs.

I have narrow hallways. I've heard the counter argument that you can rule a narrow hallway with a staff, but I'm not game for that.

I'm concerned with overpenetration of drywall, because I have family at every turn in my house. 9mm can be an overpenetrator, and I've seen demos of 5.56x45 and 12 gauge with certain ammo being safer, in that regard. But that leads me to my next need:

My goal is not to devastate an enemy; it is to get a threat out of my house. 5.56x45 and 12 gauge can devastate a target with the right velocities and ammo.

And my wife is familiar with a 9mm. It's good to consider the ability and preferences of other users in your home. That will be more important when my kids get older.

Can you defend your home with a .22lr snubnosed pistol? Sure, but can you operate with the limitations and advantages of such a tool?